Interview: One Juror's Thoughts...

Last night, I was fortunate enough to spend a few hours interviewing one of the juror's of Harlow Cuadra's murder trial... while I'm not going to post the entire interview online, I'll offer a few interesting quotes/observations:

'Harlow's mother was annoying.'

Found it odd that 'Harlow's mother couldn't speak English on the stand, but had no problem doing so in front of the cameras.'

After the trial the juror heard from a source that 'Joe's lawyer had him call his mother before taking the stand to testify for Harlow'.

After the trial the juror heard from a source that 'one of Harlow's attorney's apparently asked the prosecution for a deal: 3rd degree/30 years... and thought the DA's office wanted the trial for publicity'.

'Harlow was really crying while on the stand (for a while) but you could tell it was an act... then he started yelling. He was erratic... one minute he goes in to the porn thing, then changes to a completely different subject. He yelled at Melnick several times.'

'Harlow would say Joseph... then Joe when he was mad.'

Thinks Harlow was the killer... 'houses too close for a gun'. 'Joe does most of the looting while Harlow cleans up'.

'Harlow and Joe's debt was never brought up'

'Nep admitted to having sex with Joe... we wondered if they had to flip a coin... meanwhile Matthew Brannon said he had a 3-some with Joe and Harlow.'

More interviews to come...

Jurors: Cuadra Sealed own Fate

The Times Leader is reporting that if it wasn’t for a cigarette break, the Harlow Cuadra trial could have ended in a mistrial, two jurors said Tuesday, a day after the 27-year-old from Virginia was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Bryan Kocis.

Thomas Stavitzski, juror No. 11, and James Scutt III, juror No. 12, said there were four jurors who weren’t convinced Cuadra actually killed Kocis, but rather believed that Joseph Kerekes, 35, was the murderer.

Both men said that, for them, it was Cuadra’s own testimony that ultimately sealed his fate.

Stavitzski and Scutt detailed what went on behind closed doors when the jury deliberated Cuadra’s fate after the 12-day trial and during the penalty phase.

Stavitzski said that during a break in deliberating on Thursday, several jurors went outside to have a cigarette, including the four jurors who weren’t convinced Cuadra killed Kocis.

“The jurors went out for a smoke, and when they returned, one of them told us she thought about the case when she was outside for a cigarette and came to agree (Cuadra) was guilty,” Stavitzski said. “The other jurors who had doubt then came around.”

“There were four jurors who thought it could have been Joe,” Scutt said. “You had no direct evidence, no DNA linking (Cuadra) to the murder. There was so much circumstantial evidence. There were several that couldn’t put the knife in his hand.”

Stavitzski and Scutt said they also had doubt Cuadra actually killed Kocis until Cuadra testified in his own defense. “To me, he solidified the whole case,” Scutt said.

“Harlow wasn’t answering the direct questions,” Stavitzski said. “In my mind, the evidence was circumstantial; he turned it into hard evidence. He was talking in circles.”

Attorney Joseph D’Andrea, who along with attorney Paul Walker represented Cuadra, said on Monday that having Cuadra testify “did more harm than he did good.”

D’Andrea added he would have had Cuadra testify if given the opportunity a second time.

Stavitzski said he noticed Cuadra wearing glasses and oversized shirts during the trial. When Cuadra testified, Stavitzski said, Cuadra immediately took off the glasses and kept them off.

“He basically looked like a kid sitting there at the table,” Stavitzski said. “But as soon as he took the stand, he took off the glasses and he sounded like Hulk Hogan giving a wrestling interview. He had more holes in his testimony than Swiss cheese.”

Throughout the trial, Cuadra’s attorneys shifted blame for Kocis’ murder onto Kerekes, suggesting Kerekes was the more dominant one in the relationship between him and Cuadra. Stavitzski and Scutt said that argument worked on several jurors, but not with them.

“Their relationship was brought up a lot in deliberations,” Stavitzski said. “Joe was more muscle but Harlow was the brains.”

“As far as Joe being dominant and Harlow acting as the housewife, I found that hard to believe,” Scutt said.

Kerekes briefly appeared during the trial under a subpoena issued by Cuadra’s lawyers. When he took the witness stand, Kerekes opted not to testify on Cuadra’s behalf.

“Harlow gave (Kerekes) a look to kill,” Stavitzski said. Had Kerekes testified, Stavitzski and Scutt said it wouldn’t have mattered.

“I would have taken into consideration his credibility,” Stavitzski said. “What did he have to lose, he had nothing to gain. For what he did, I have to respect him for telling the truth.”

Kerekes said from the witness stand on March 10: “I’ve been thinking a lot about my parents. I think it will destroy them to say something that I didn’t do. What I told you (D’Andrea) is untrue.”

D’Andrea informed the jury that he met Kerekes several times before Kerekes’ appearance during the trial.

“I think Joe told the truth on the witness stand,” Scutt said.

Stavitzski said testimony from forensic pathologist Dr. Mary Pascucci, who performed Kocis’ autopsy, was powerful in explaining Kocis suffered a single swipe from a knife that nearly decapitated him.

“She explained it was one swipe that ended Bryan’s life,” Stavitzski said. “Harlow’s description of Joe storming in and fighting with Bryan, and slashing his neck twice and Bryan is still talking was just unbelievable.”

The two jurors said that if Kerekes and Kocis fought the way that Cuadra claimed the fight occurred, there would have been defensive wounds on Kocis’ arms.

“If someone is coming at you with a knife, what’s the first thing you do, you put up your arms,” Stavitzski said.

“Bryan didn’t have any injuries or stab wounds on his arms,” Scutt said.

Stavitzski said the relationship between Cuadra and Kerekes was solidified when assistant district attorneys Michael Melnick, Shannon Crake and Allyson Kacmarski played to the jury recorded conversations of the two men with Lockhart and Grant Roy.

Roy, a producer of gay pornographic films based in San Diego, Calif., wore a body wire on two consecutive days when he met with Cuadra and Kerekes in late April 2007.

“Those tapes that were played, I got to know their mannerisms, I got to know what this whole case is about,” Stavitzski said. “Harlow did a lot of talking on those tapes; it showed me he was at the house.”

The jury deliberated for nearly three hours and 30 minutes before they reached a verdict convicting Cuadra. Scutt said the jury convicted Cuadra in three hours, and allowed 30 minutes for jurors to express their thoughts and opinions before they notified the court that a verdict had been reached.

During deliberations in the penalty phase, Scutt said, four jurors had difficulty in imposing capital punishment.

“We all agreed Harlow played a part in the murder as an accomplice, but those four couldn’t put the knife in his hands,” Scutt said. “It was an emotional trial, one of the toughest things I have ever done in my life.”
---
Additional Articles:

Juror’s faith in county justice system restored during Cuadra trial
Kocis’ parents still without closure

Cuadra Jury Deadlocked Before Discussing Death Penalty

Updated 03/18/09 @ 6:23 AM

The Citizens' Voice is reporting that Eight jurors put the knife in Harlow Cuadra’s hands.

Four couldn’t.

Because the jury could not unanimously decide whether Cuadra was the killer or the accomplice in Bryan Kocis’ murder, Cuadra was spared the death penalty Monday, two jurors of his homicide trial said Tuesday.

“No one knows who did the actual deed of slashing the man’s throat,” said Ellen Matulis, a grandmother and homemaker from Jenkins Township who served as Juror No. 1.

She was among the four jurors who believed Cuadra could’ve been the accomplice of Joseph Kerekes, Cuadra’s lover and business partner who previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the Kocis homicide.

A day after the jury deadlocked in the penalty phase of Cuadra’s homicide trial, Matulis and another juror spoke with The Citizens’ Voice about the sensational case and their deliberations as Cuadra’s life hung in the balance.

“I’d be a liar if I said voices weren’t raised. Obviously, if you got people who want a death penalty, it gets tense,” she said. “We carried a person’s life in our hands.”

Jurors deliberated in the penalty phase of Cuadra’s murder trial for nearly six hours Monday before telling Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. they were deadlocked on whether prosecutors proved an aggravating circumstance that would make Cuadra eligible for the death penalty. Olszewski then sentenced Cuadra to life in prison. The same jury on Thursday found Cuadra guilty of first-degree murder. In Pennsylvania, a defendant is guilty of the charge even if he was an accomplice.

Prosecutors alleged Cuadra was Kocis’ killer. They said he the one who slashed Kocis’ throat and stabbed him dozens of times inside his Dallas Township, home before setting the residence ablaze. Prosecutors said Cuadra and Kerekes conspired to kill Kocis, a rival gay pornography producer. At trial, the defense tried to pin the killing on Kerekes.

Images presented as evidence by the prosecution about the brutal murder will be seared in jurors’ minds forever, Matulis said.

“The shock of actually seeing some of this, it was mind boggling — seeing a burnt corpse, a heart cut with stab wounds …” Matulis said. “My life was changed and I wasn’t the criminal.”

Matulis and fellow juror Daniel Austin said the person who sealed Cuadra’s fate was Cuadra himself when he took the witness stand.

“He shot himself in the foot with the different lies,” said Austin, 58, a retired postal worker from Harveys Lake. “In my eyes, Harlow definitely was the one who did the actual killing.”

“He placed himself in the house, he described it. All reasonable doubt, as far as him being an accomplice, went out the window when he opened his mouth,” Matulis added.

Both jurors said the jury never even got to the point where it deliberated whether Cuadra should live or die. The panel failed to agree that there was an aggravating circumstance that would make Cuadra eligible for the death penalty. Prosecutors argued there were two aggravating circumstances — that the murder occurred during the commission of a felony, the robbery of Kocis, and a fire set to Kocis’ home put fire crews at great risk. Jurors rejected the fire argument. Olszewski told jurors the aggravated circumstance of robbery could only be applied against Cuadra if they believed he was the killer. The jury deadlocked in this regard.

Had the jury found an aggravating circumstance, they would have weighed it against mitigating circumstances offered by the defense, such as sexual abuse Cuadra endured and his service in the Navy.

Austin said he thought prosecutors proved an aggravating circumstance, but doesn’t think he would’ve voted for the death penalty.

“You could see his family was dysfunctional. He did serve his country. With that in my mind, I was learning towards life anyway. But we never got that far. He got life in prison. I could live with that. In my opinion, I’d rather be dead than sitting in a prison cell for the next 50, 60 years,” Austin said.

Matulis agreed.

“I think the outcome of the trial worked out. I’m content with it. He’s not a free man. He’ll never be a free man,” Matulis said.

Harlow Cuadra's Trial... Step 2

Harlow Cuadra's trial is still scheduled to begin on February 17, 2009, for the brutal slaying of Bryan Kocis. Earlier this month, I did a post that went over the steps that will be taken before... and during... jury selection for Harlow's trial.

The following is a list of rules that take place once the jury has been selected:

Conduct of Jury Trial:

I. Swearing the Trial Jury to Hear the Cause
II. Consent to Be Tried by Less Than Twelve Jurors
III. Sequestration of Trial Jurors
IV. View by Jury
V. Note Taking by Jurors
VI. Seating and Discharge of Alternate Jurors
VII. Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury
VIII. Request for Instructions, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions
IX. Verdicts
X. Sealed Verdict

Source: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Code

Swearing the Trial Jury to Hear the Cause

Rule 640. Swearing the Trial Jury to Hear the Cause

(A) After all jurors have been selected, the jury, including any alternates, shall be sworn as a body to hear the cause.

(B) The following oath shall be administered:

‘‘You do solemnly swear by Almighty God and those of you who affirm do declare and affirm that you will well and truly try the issue joined between the Commonwealth and the defendant(s), and a true verdict render according to the evidence.’’

Consent to Be Tried by Less Than Twelve Jurors

Rule 641. Agreement to be Tried by Fewer Than Twelve Jurors.

In all cases, at any time after a jury of 12 is initially sworn and before verdict, the defendant and the attorney for the Commonwealth, with approval of the judge, may agree to a jury of fewer than 12 but not fewer than 6. Such agreement shall be made a part of the record. The verdict in such a case shall have the same force and effect as a verdict by a jury of 12.

Sequestration of Trial Jurors

Rule 642. Sequestration of Trial Jurors.

(A) The trial judge may, in the judge’s discretion, order sequestration of trial jurors in the interests of justice.

(B) When sequestration is ordered, each juror, including any alternate, shall be sequestered from the time of acceptance as a juror until discharged.

(C) Nothing is paragraph (B) shall prevent a trial judge from ordering sequestration, or vacating the order of sequestration, at any time during a trial when the interests of justice require.

View by Jury

Rule 643. View by Jury.

(A) The trial judge may in the judge’s discretion order a view by the jury.

(B) The trial judge, the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant and defendant’s attorney shall be present at the view, except as provided in Rule 602.

Note Taking by Jurors

Rule 644. Note Taking by Jurors.

(A) When a jury trial is expected to last for more than two days, jurors shall be permitted to take notes during the trial for their use during deliberations. When the trial is expected to last two days or less, the judge may permit the jurors to take notes.

(1) The jurors shall not take notes during the judge’s charge at the conclusion of the trial.

(2) The court shall provide materials to the jurors that are suitable for note taking. These are the only materials that may be used by the jurors for note taking.

(3) The court, the attorney for the Commonwealth, and the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented, shall not request or suggest that jurors take notes, comment on the jurors’ note taking, or attempt to read any notes.

(4) The notes of the jurors shall remain in the custody of the court at all times.

(5) The jurors may have access to their notes and use their notes only during the trial and deliberations. The notes shall be collected or maintained by the court at each break and recess, and at the end of each day of the trial.

(6) The notes of the jurors shall be confidential and limited to use for the jurors’ deliberations.

(7) Before announcing the verdict, the jury shall return their notes to the court. The notes shall be destroyed by court personnel without inspection upon the discharge of the jury.

(8) The notes shall not be used as a basis for a request for a new trial, and the judge shall deny any request that the jurors’ notes be retained and sealed pending a request for a new trial.

(B) The judge shall instruct the jurors about taking notes during the trial. At a minimum, the judge shall instruct the jurors that:

(1) the jurors are not required to take notes, and those jurors who take notes are not required to take extensive notes;

(2) note taking should not divert jurors from paying full attention to the evidence and evaluating witness credibility;

(3) the notes merely are memory aids, not evidence or the official record;

(4) the jurors who take few or no notes should not permit their independent recollection of the evidence to be influenced by the fact that other jurors have taken notes;

(5) the jurors may not show their notes or disclose the contents of the notes to other jurors until deliberations begin, but may show the notes or disclose the contents during deliberations;

(6) the jurors may not take their notes out of the courtroom except to use their notes during deliberations; and

(7) the jurors’ notes are confidential, will not be reviewed by the court or anyone else, will be collected before the verdict is announced, and will be destroyed immediately upon discharge of the jury.

Seating and Discharge of Alternate Jurors

Rule 645. Seating and Discharge of Alternate Jurors.

(A) Alternate jurors, in the order in which they are called, shall replace principal jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties.

(B) An alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall be discharged before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury

Rule 646. Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury.

(A) Upon retiring, the jury may take with it such exhibits as the trial judge deems proper, except as provided in paragraph (B).

(B) During deliberations, the jury shall not be permitted to have:

(1) a transcript of any trial testimony;

(2) a copy of any written or otherwise recorded confession by the defendant;

(3) a copy of the information;

(4) written jury instructions.

(C) The jurors shall be permitted to have their notes for use during deliberations.

Request for Instructions, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions

Rule 647. Request for Instruction, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions.

(A) Any party may submit to the trial judge written requests for instructions to the jury. Such requests shall be submitted within a reasonable time before the closing arguments, and at the same time copies thereof shall be furnished to the other parties. Before closing arguments, the trial judge shall inform the parties on the record of the judge’s rulings on all written requests. The trial judge shall charge the jury after the arguments are completed.

(B) No portions of the charge nor omissions therefrom may be assigned as error, unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate. All such objections shall be made beyond the hearing of the jury.

(C) After the jury has retired to consider its verdict, additional or correctional instructions may be given by the trial judge in the presence of all parties, except that the defendant’s absence without cause shall not preclude proceeding, as provided in Rule 602.

(D) The trial judge may give instructions to the jury before the taking of evidence or at anytime during the trial as the judge deems necessary and appropriate for the jury’s guidance in hearing the case.

Verdicts

Rule 648. Verdicts.

(A) Upon retiring to deliberate, the jury shall select one of its members as foreman.

(B) The verdict shall be unanimous, and shall be announced by the foreman in open court in the presence of a judge, the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant and defendant’s attorney, except as provided in Rule 602.

(C) If there are two or more defendants, the jury may report a verdict or verdicts with respect to those defendants, upon which it has agreed, and the judge shall receive all such verdicts. If the jury cannot agree upon a verdict with respect to all of the defendants, the verdicts which have been received shall be recorded.

(D) If there are two or more counts in the information or indictment, the jury may report a verdict or verdicts with respect to those counts upon which it has agreed, and the judge shall receive and record all such verdicts. If the jury cannot agree with respect to all the counts in the information or indictment if those counts to which it has agreed operate as an acquittal of lesser or greater included offenses to which they cannot agree, these latter counts shall be dismissed. When the counts in the information or indictment upon which the jury cannot agree are not included offenses of the counts in the information or indictment upon which it has agreed, the defendant or defendants may be retried on those counts in the information or indictment.

(E) If there are two or more informations or indictments, the jury may report a verdict or verdicts with respect to those informations or indictments upon which it has agreed, and the judge shall receive and record all such verdicts. If the jury cannot agree with respect to all the informations or indictments, if those informations or indictments to which it has agreed operate as an acquittal of lesser or greater included offenses to which they cannot agree, these latter informations or indictments shall be dismissed. When the informations or indictments upon which the jury cannot agree are not included in the offenses of the information or indictment upon which it has agreed, the defendant or defendants may be retried on those informations or indictments.

(F) If there is a summary offense joined with the misdemeanor, felony, or murder charge that was tried before the jury, the trial judge shall not remand the summary offense to the issuing authority. The summary offense shall be disposed of in the court of common pleas, and the verdict with respect to the summary offense shall be recorded in the same manner as the verdict with respect to the other charges.

(G) Before a verdict, whether oral or sealed, is recorded, the jury shall be polled at the request of any party. Except where the verdict is sealed, if upon such poll there is no concurrence, the jury shall be directed to retire for further deliberations.

Sealed Verdict

Rule 649. Sealed Verdict.

(A) Upon the consent of all parties the judge may permit the jury to seal its verdict.

(B) The sealed verdict shall remain in the custody of the foreman of the jury who shall bring it to the next session of court stated by the trial judge. Once a verdict is sealed, the jurors may separate, but all jurors must return to open court to render the jury’s verdict, with all parties present.

(C) If upon the poll of a jury there is no concurrence with a sealed verdict, the judge shall not accept the verdict, but shall declare a mistrial and discharge the jury.

First... Second... Third... or None?

A couple of weeks ago I posted a poll that asked: 'what do you think a jury will find Harlow Cuadra guilty of: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder, or innocent?'.

Interestingly an over-whelming majority chose "first-degree murder".

Now I'm not sure if that's because of personal wishes, or thoughts based upon law... but since we're getting closer to Harlow's trial, I'd like to know the reason as to why you chose what you did... assuming you don't mind sharing.

Meanwhile... here's the Pennsylvania Crimes Code:

Part II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES CHAPTER 25

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE:

§ 2501. Criminal Homicide:

(a) Offense defined: A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.

(b) Classification: Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.

§ 2502. Murder:

(a) Murder of the first degree: A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree: A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree: All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

(d) Definitions: As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Intentional killing":
Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.

"Perpetration of a felony":
The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.

"Principal":
A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.

It should also be noted that the penalties for each offense are as follows (maximum time):

(1) Murder of the first degree: Mandatory death or life imprisonment
(2) Murder of the second degree: Mandatory life imprisonment
(3) Felony of the first degree (murder of the third degree): 20 years

Sources:
Pennsylvania Crimes Code § 2501
Pennsylvania Crimes Code § 15.66

Defendant's Proposed Verdict Slip(s)

Here's a copy of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' proposed verdict slips, to be filled out by the jury once they've reached their decision:

Harlow Cuadra's Proposed Verdict Slip:


Joseph Kerekes' Proposed Verdict Slip:

Harlow and Joe's Proposed Voir Dire

Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire

I. HARDSHIP:

A. We anticipate that the trial in this case may last at least two to three weeks. Would service as a juror in this case impose a substantial hardship on you?

B. Do you suffer from any kind of physical impairment, infirmity or disability which would prevent you from sitting for long periods of time for several weeks and hearing and concentrating on testimony and evidence, or do you have any condition which would impede your service as a juror in this case?

II. PUBLICITY:

A. Have you read, observed or heard anything about the charges or facts of this case from any source, including but not limited to internet, newspaper, radio, television or person?

B. Based upon what you have read, observed or heard, have you discussed what you have learned with any person?

C. Based upon what you have read, observed or heard, have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the facts of the case, the guilt or innocence of the defendants or any sentence that should be imposed?

D. Is the opinion you have formed or expressed one that is firm or resolute in your mind?

E. Is your opinion of such a nature that you will not set it aside unless and until you hear evidence that convinces you that your opinion is wrong?

F. Would you require one or both of the defendants to take the stand and testify in order to change your opinion?

G. Would you disregard the judge’s instruction that the defendants have the right not to testify in their own defense because of the opinion you have formed?

H. Would you disregard the judge’s instruction that the defendants are right now and throughout the trial presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt because of the opinion you have formed?

I. Because of anything you may have read, observed or heard, would there be any reason you could not be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

III. BIAS RELATING TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION:

The defendants in this case are homosexual. Further, the defendants were partners in a committed homosexual relationship. The victim in this case was also a homosexual. Testimony may be elicited from both the Commonwealth and defense regarding the sexual orientation of both the defendants and the victim. Given those facts:

A. Do you perceive that homosexuals are more or less likely to commit crimes or engage in criminal conduct?

B. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever made a joke about homosexuals?

C. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever referred to homosexuals by using a derogatory term such as “fag,” “queer,” etc?

D. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever felt uncomfortable in the presence of a homosexual, whether in a public facility, metropolitan area or neighborhood?

E. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever avoided situations where contact with homosexuals would be anticipated?

F. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever avoided television or media programs where homosexuals would be depicted simply because of that fact alone?

G. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented about the propriety of homosexuals living in committed relationships?

H. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to the demonstration of homosexual civil marriage ceremonies?

I. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever refused to associate yourselves with homosexuals?

J. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented on a perceived connection between homosexuals and disease including but not limited to HIV and the AIDS virus?

K. Would the fact that homosexuals are accused of killing another homosexual in any way affect your ability to serve as an impartial juror in this case?

L. Would you find the testimony of a homosexual less credible than that of a heterosexual simply because of their sexual orientation?

M. Would the fact that the defendants were in a committed homosexual relationship at the time of the commission of the alleged offense in any way affect your ability to serve as an impartial juror in this case?

N. Has anything ever occurred involving you, a member of your family or close friend which involved a person of homosexual orientation that would in any way create a feeling of animosity or hostility towards either of the defendants?

O. Are you conscious of any prejudice or bias against homosexuals?

P. Are you, any member of your family or close friends a member of any group or organization that advocates against homosexuality?

Q. Would the fact that either defendant may have a homosexual orientation or have a lifestyle different than yours in any way affect your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

IV. BIAS RELATING TO HOMOSEXUAL PORNOGRAPHY INDUSTRY:

Both the defendants and the victim in this case were engaged in the production of homosexual pornography. The majority of this business was conducted over the internet. Testimony may be elicited from the Commonwealth and the defendants about the homosexual pornography industry. Given those facts:

A. Do you perceive that people in the pornography industry generally are more likely to commit crimes or to engage in criminal conduct?

B. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to the display of homosexual activities through pornographic media?

C. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to those who profit from the display of homosexual activities?

D. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented on a perceived connection between homosexual pornography and disease including but not limited to HIV and the AIDS virus?

E. Would the fact that the defendants were involved in the homosexual pornography industry in any way affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

F. Are you conscious of any prejudice or bias against those who work in the homosexual pornography business?

G. Do you, members of your family or close friends hold the belief that pornography of any kind generally leads to the degradation of the morals of the individuals involved in the industry and/or society as a whole?

H. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever spoken out against the pornography industry generally?

I. Would you find the testimony of an individual involved in the homosexual pornography industry less credible than that of a heterosexual simply because of their employment?

V. WITNESSES:

The Commonwealth is under a burden to prove each and every element of each and every crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. They may attempt to do so through the presentation of testimony given by witnesses. The defense is under no burden whatsoever to call any witnesses on their behalf or to take the stand in their own defense. That is because both defendants are presumed innocent and remain innocent unless the jury says otherwise. The only burden in the courtroom is upon the Commonwealth. When witnesses testify, you are to judge their credibility. Given those facts:

A. Is there any reason you could not accept the principles of burden of proof, presumption of innocence and assessment of credibility of witnesses I have just discussed and within that framework sit as a fair and impartial juror?

B. Do you know anyone employed by the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office?

C. Do you know any of the attorneys for the defendants?

D. Do you know any employees of any prosecuting or investigating police agency?

E. The victim in this case is Bryan Kocis of Midland Drive in Dallas, Pennsylvania. Does anyone know Mr. Kocis or any member of his family?

F. The defendants are Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Does anyone know Mr. Kerekes or Mr. Cuadra or any member of their family?

G. The Commonwealth has identified the following individuals who may be called as witnesses to testify on behalf of the prosecution: [ witnesses]. Do you know any of those individuals?

H. Several law enforcement officers from different law enforcement agencies may be called to testify. Would you find the testimony of a police officer more credible simply because he is a police officer?

I. Have you, members of your family or close friends had any law enforcement training or experience?

VI. CIRCUMSTANCES OF CRIME:

The Commonwealth is alleging that the defendants both individually and acting in concert with one another entered Bryan Kocis’ home, killed him by slicing his throat, stabbed his remains 28 times, stole items from his home and set his home on fire. The defendants have pled not guilty. Given these facts:

A. Is there anything about the nature of these allegations which would substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

B. Given the nature of the factual allegations, do you have any bias or prejudice against either of the defendants because they are charged with committing these acts?

C. Do you favor the prosecution because they are seeking to hold someone responsible
for these acts?

D. Because the defendants are charged with these acts, would you require either or both of them to prove their innocence by testifying and presenting evidence? Would you impose this requirement despite any instruction that the Court would give you that the defendants are presumed innocent, that they do not have to testify or present evidence, that if one or both of them do not testify or present evidence it cannot be held against them and that the Commonwealth must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

E. Because of the nature of the charges, do you have any substantial doubt as to whether you could enter a verdict of not guilty in the event that the Commonwealth does not prove the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt?

F. Are you afraid of either defendant? If so, does this fear substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

G. If the Commonwealth did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, would you nevertheless be reluctant to return a verdict of not guilty simply because you would fear public or community sentiment or opinion regarding your verdict?

H. During jury selection and trial you will observe security and sheriffs deputies in the courtroom. Such security is designed to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in an orderly fashion. Given the fact that security will be in the courtroom, would that in any way substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

I. Evidence will be presented that references modern technology, including but not limited to computer forensics, emailing, internet, IP addresses, cellular tower signals, laptop computers and mobile air cards. Are you uncomfortable with such modern technology? Do you lack basic understanding about such technology? If so, would your lack of basic knowledge and/or your discomfort in any way impede your ability to listen to such testimony or cause you to disregard such testimony, thereby impacting your ability to fairly consider all evidence presented?

J. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend been charged with any offense similar to those charged in this case?

L. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend ever witnessed any crimes similar to those charged in this case?

M. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime similar to those charged in this case?

VII. CONSOLIDATED TRIALS:

The Commonwealth has joined the individual cases against each defendant together for purposes of trial. This means that some evidence that will be presented during this trial that may only pertain to one defendant, and other evidence will be presented that may pertain to both defendants. Nevertheless, you must hear all of the testimony and decide what would be relevant in considering the guilt or innocence of each defendant separately. Given those facts:

A. Do you believe that you would have a substantial problem considering evidence that only relates to one defendant when considering that defendant’s guilt or innocence and not considering it for the other defendant?

B. Do you believe that hearing evidence regarding the separate actions of each defendant would in any way impact your ability to assess the actions of each defendant separately, fairly and impartially?

VIII. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

The Commonwealth has charged an open count of Criminal Homicide against each defendant relating to the death of Bryan Kocis. An open count of Criminal Homicide in Pennsylvania encompasses three degrees of murder and two degrees of manslaughter. When an open count is charged, the jury must decide what degree is appropriate, if any. The Commonwealth intends to seek the death penalty if and only if the jury returns a verdict of first degree murder. If a verdict of first degree murder is returned, the Court must conduct a separate hearing after which the jury must decide whether the defendant(s) will be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole.

This separate proceeding is only reached upon conviction of first degree murder. If any other verdict is reached, the death penalty is no longer an option. Following the proceeding, the jury actually imposes the sentence. It is more than a recommendation.

During the penalty phase proceeding, the Commonwealth must prove what it considers to be aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt The jury must unanimously find these aggravating circumstances. If they do not, the sentence will be life in prison without parole. The defense may present mitigating evidence such as character, background, mental illness, etc. If the defense presents mitigating evidence, the jury must then weigh the aggravating evidence proven by the Commonwealth against the mitigating evidence presented by the defense. If the aggravators outweigh the mitigators, death is imposed. If the mitigators are equal to or outweigh the aggravators, life without parole is imposed. Given those facts and what you now know about the case:

A. Would you reject evidence or give it little or no weight presented by the defendants regarding character, background, mental health or anything else as mitigation to support a claim that life without parole should be imposed?

B. Would you automatically hold that in a case such as this, the death penalty should be imposed, without regard to the weighing process I have described?

C. Do you believe the death penalty should automatically be imposed every time a person is convicted of first degree murder?

D. If the Commonwealth does not prove one or more aggravators, would you have any problem returning a verdict of life without parole?

E. Can you follow the instructions regarding the weighing process even though if you reach penalty phase you would have been part of the same jury that convicted the defendant(s) of first degree murder?

F. Can you return a verdict of something less than first degree murder or acquit one or both defendants entirely if warranted by law and evidence, even though the Commonwealth is seeking the death penalty for the intentional, premeditated killing of Bryan Kocis?

G. Given the nature of the case, can you perceive of any problem returning a sentence of life without parole in the event that first degree murder is the verdict?

H. Do you have any religious, moral or other objections to the death penalty to such a degree that it would prevent you from sitting as a juror or imposing a sentence of death?

I. Under the law, the death penalty cannot be imposed for an accomplice. In other words, if you find that one defendant was only an accomplice to first degree murder, you will not be required to consider the death penalty against that defendant. Nevertheless, do you believe that the death penalty should be imposed anytime that someone is a mere accomplice to an intentional premeditated murder?

J. Have you ever supported or been a member of any group or organization that advocates in favor of the death penalty?

K. Have you ever opposed, ridiculed or advocated against any group or organization that is against the death penalty?

Respectfully Submitted,

SHELLY L. CENTINI, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes

JOHN PIKE, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes

STEVEN MENN, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra

MICHAEL B. SENAPE, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra